3D Terminator 2 Judgement Day 3D (1 Viewer)

[WillG]

Good point, but both instances of Arnie's and Robert Patrick's nudity could be excused as simple filmmaking flaws -- I don't think those "prove" the terminators have genitalia as well as the scene at the bar...

They have to (although, yeah I guess it the case of the T-1000, it can be decided at will). If they're designed to be able to pass for human, it seems kind of important (especially since they travel through time naked and remain naked until they can acquire clothing). I guess though, if you got close enough to a terminator where you could perform a genital test, you're already dead.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

I'm just getting back from a 3D screening and I was sadly underwhelmed with the presentation. With the caveat that who knows how the RealD screening represented the actual 3D DCP, I noticed very little dimensionality. While the image was remarkably clear and clean, and the sound mix (in Atmos) sounded great, it was exceedingly hard to notice any 3D effect at all for most of the film. I took my glasses off a few times to verify that it was actually running in 3D (it was, and the theater's 3D preshow "put on your glasses" stinger looked fine to me) and I could see the telltale double images, but taken as a whole, almost none of it was coming through to me.

I thought the Titanic conversation was fantastic and this was done by many of the same people, so not sure what went wrong. Hoping it was a presentation issue rather than an issue with the actual conversion. Guess I'll find out when the U.K. disc comes out.

 

[TravisR]

I thought the Future War sequence looked pretty cool in 3-D and while there were periodic shots that worked great, the opening was the stand out. All that being said, I was just happy to see it on a movie theater screen again.

 

[Mark-P]

Not to derail the interesting conversations underway here, but I would like to add my observations about the 3-D in particular.

My good buddy Ed and I walked out of the late show at the AMC Burbank 16 about one hour ago as I write this. He was delighted to learn the film was in re-issue, and doubly delighted to learn it had been converted to 3-D. He had had no idea of either fact until I told him.

I should make clear right here and now that I myself have not watched Terminator 2 straight through in one go since its initial theatrical release some 25 years ago. I am very, very glad I made it out to the cinema tonight. The film is even more entertaining than I remembered.

Having read many opinions online regarding this present 3-D conversion, I can tell you right now that I am going to be offering a dissenting view to some of you.

A number of persons have asserted that there are no "pop-outs" to speak of. I can only surmise they must mean small objects that fly perilously close to the camera (and to your eyes as a spectator). The conversion I just saw is filled with negative parallax. Plenty of objects transgress the plane of the screen, quite pleasingly.

Early in the film comes a shot of John's foster mother facing her husband in their family living room. She's standing at frame left with her back to us. This shot (to cite it as one representative instance) is a prime example of what I call the casual negative. The character is standing in the auditorium with us. Marvelous.

All throughout the film, Mr. Cameron has his camera crew prowl around doorways and corners as though on a creeping hunt for the action that is always unfolding somewhere in the world of the story. In every case, the wall or doorjamb closest to the camera is out into theater space-- in many cases, about a third of the way between screen and spectator.

James Cameron and Vince Pace are on record as preferring to link focus and convergence in their native stereo camera rigs. When they pull focus to render pin-sharp a particular point in space, it automatically becomes the point of convergence as well, exhibiting zero parallax. Mr. Cameron brings that same visual strategy into play here. Numerous shots were filmed with longish lenses and a shallow depth of field. Focus shifts from this person in the right foreground to that person in the left background, then back again. In each case-- and I watcheded occasionally with my 3-D glasses off to make sure-- convergence shifts to place the point of zero parallax squarely at the point of focus as well. This is Cameron's stereo signature.

In a recent, unrelated posting elsewhere, I asserted that the 3-D films of the 1950s put paid the false notion that objects with negative parallax may not touch the top and bottom horizontal edges of the frame, for fear of spoiling the stereo illusion. I further asserted my view that the left and right vertical edges may possibly also be violated with no mischief to the illusion. Well, judging from what I saw tonight, Mr. Cameron certainly takes the same view. Given that the film is rife with closed compositions and over-the-shoulder shots, there are numerous instances where a person standing in the extreme foreground, very close to the camera and therefore "cut off" by a vertical edge, still has substantial negative parallax, and consequently appears quite obviously to be standing in theater space. Speaking for myself and my friend Ed-- himself a casual 3-D fan but a keen observer-- there was absolutely no loss of illusion in these cases.

I know that some folks reckon "strong" versus "medium" versus "weak 3-D" based purely on the sum total of screen parallax. Me, I don't see it that way. I know that a scene with relatively low values of screen parallax may still be considered "strong" so long as it conforms to natural visual scale. One thing I have learned from 30 years as a stereo hobbyist (and have absolutely confirmed noodling around with a stereo base calculator that anyone may obtain for free on their Android device) is that the total amount of screen parallax doubles every time the near point distance is cut in half. In other words, if your near point is 20 feet, your total screen parallax will be x; if your near point is cut to 10 feet, your total screen parallax will be 2x; if your near point is cut to 5 feet, your total screen parallax will be 4x (so long as your far point remains unchanged).

The opposite is also true. For every time you double your near point distance, your total parallax is cut in half. If your near point is 20 feet, your total parallax will be x; make that 40 feet, and now your parallax is 1/2x.

The folks responsible for this conversion seem to understand this principle thoroughly. The only occasions I perceived super low values of screen parallax were in wide shots where the main subject stood some distance from the camera. Such scenes would look much the same even filmed with native 3-D camera rigs.

Several folks have noted that faces appear rounder here than they did in the Titanic conversion a few years ago. I agree. However, I very much hope to confirm this observation when I lay hands on the UK Blu-Ray in a few weeks. I think some screen grabs will be in order then, don't you?

Ed and I saw this on a screen I guesstimate to be about 30 feet wide. With glasses off, I saw negative parallax values that must have been about a foot wide, and positive parallax values that may occasionally have gone as high as a foot and a half. Not every shot had this wide disparity, but on the other hand, this is assuredly not a milquetoast presentation that seeks to hide the parallax inside the bokeh, as I like to say. In other words, this is emphatically not the dull, room temperature 3-D we've had to sit through in so many recent releases. This is robust, high parallax 3-D that compares favorably to the vintage, natively shot stereo films of the Golden Age.

(There is much to observe and much to say with regards to the compositional difference between films of the 1950s, both 2-D and 3-D, and films of more recent vintage like Terminator 2. But that will surely wait for another time and another posting.)

I did ask myself whether a few shots in the third act, particularly during the final showdown, faltered somewhat in their stereo geometry. But I could not put my finger on just what might be going wrong, if in fact anything was. Maybe we can blame simple fatigue. It's been a long day and a long week, and anyway I haven't seen this many insane truck crashes and wild explosions since the last time I binge-watched Russian dashboard cameras on YouTube. I got tired toward the end.

To sum up, put me down as one absolutely intoxicated by the overall quality and stereo showmanship on view in this conversion. And put me down as one who looks forward to revisiting this fine film again soon on an imported Blu-Ray disc. I am dismayed that Terminator 2 has been given such a desultory re-issue, apparently with very little promotion, and I can only hope it fares well elsewhere in the world. This two-eyed edition deserves to find an audience-- a big, enthusiastic audience.

I'm just getting back from a 3D screening and I was sadly underwhelmed with the presentation. With the caveat that who knows how the RealD screening represented the actual 3D DCP, I noticed very little dimensionality. While the image was remarkably clear and clean, and the sound mix (in Atmos) sounded great, it was exceedingly hard to notice any 3D effect at all for most of the film. I took my glasses off a few times to verify that it was actually running in 3D (it was, and the theater's 3D preshow "put on your glasses" stinger looked fine to me) and I could see the telltale double images, but taken as a whole, almost none of it was coming through to me.

I thought the Titanic conversation was fantastic and this was done by many of the same people, so not sure what went wrong. Hoping it was a presentation issue rather than an issue with the actual conversion. Guess I'll find out when the U.K. disc comes out.

Isn't it interesting how two different people can have completely opposite opinions about the same conversion. One sees lots of parallax and the other hardly any at all!

 

[Josh Steinberg]

I had seen Mike's note before the screening and was looking forward to those things, and none of them came through. Leaning towards thinking there was a problem with the presentation.

 

[WillG]

Isn't it interesting how two different people can have completely opposite opinions about the same conversion. One sees lots of parallax and the other hardly any at all!

I'm mostly in agreement with @Josh Steinberg. Glad to see I'm not crazy.

 

[Mike Ballew]

Josh and WillG, I hope you two won't mind a few discovery questions. I am not challenging your conclusions, only trying to see if we can together work out whether your respective local cinemas did you (and the film) some disservice in the presentation.

Do either of you shoot your own stereo, either stills or video? Do either of you happen to draw anaglyphs? I ask these questions only to ascertain how intimately acquainted you may be with the shape of stereo disparity in twin images.

Did either of you happen to notice zero disparity at some points in the image, moderate disparity elsewhere, and perhaps great disparity at some third point in the image? Or did the disparity appear uniform throughout (i.e., a fixed disparity at all points in the image, from foreground to background)?

Did either of you happen to notice convergence shifts from foreground to background and back again? With 3-D glasses off, this would have been dramatically obvious in dialogue two-shots. Left and right image points would suddenly swing toward each other until perfect overlap was achieved, then swing back again into their original positions.

I can only wonder whether there are theaters out there playing two identical images out of registration but with no actual parallax disparity. To the casual observer, this might give the impression that the film on display is in stereo, when in fact it is not. (I do not mean to imply that either of you are mere casual observers, or that you lack discernment.)

I will be so happy when each of us has this film on Blu-Ray. I predict that all of us will be delighted with the 3-D as presented on our own reliable equipment.

 

[Edwin-S]

The film never played in China. The 3D conversion was done specifically for the Chinese market. U.S. is an afterthought here.

With these studios and TV manufacturers anything to do with 3D is an afterthought. Actually, no thought.

 

[3D Projectionist]

TODAYS THE DAY UK

Read many of the above travelling back from a ride on the Flying Scotsman and they are interesting posts to read.
Today we get to see T2 3D over here so hopefully others will report back what they make of it but our merry group are really looking forward to it later this evening.

 

[Brett_B]

I am seriously considering cancelling my order for the 3D version. I saw this at the theater this past weekend, and while it was nice to see it in 3D, and in a theater, I can't see myself at home saying to myself that, "I have to see this again in 3D." I don't think I can tell a fan of this movie that this is a must see in 3D. I did notice quite a bit of depth throughout the entire presentation, but I still prefer the Special Edition version of the film.

Some area of the film where the depth really stood out for me was the opening shot of the cars on the freeway, the future battle, and the motorcycle chase. Again, this is not enough for me to want to watch again over the Special Edition.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

Hi Mike - will do my best to answer your questions.

My knowledge of 3D and stereo viewing is limited to 3D films. I don't have any firsthand experience shooting that way, thought that does seem like a pretty cool thing to try one day.

The best I could describe it is that the 3D wasn't very apparent throughout. When it was visible, it seemed more noticeable on the sides of the frames than in the center. I noticed a some shots early on, when the terminators are arriving, and you'd think those shots showing the wide open, deep parking lot would have at least some depth - none game through. That was the only time I remember seeing ghosting during the presentation - you could see the streetlamps or parking lot lamps and I expected them to seem deep in the background, but I just saw a double image (with the glasses on) instead.

There were occasionally little hints of depth on the sides of the screen but nothing else. I was surprised, for example, that the hallways in the mental hospital or the shots of the road didn't have any depth in this presentation. Enclosed spaces that normally might have depth in other films (like Titanic) didn't show it here.

The main titles also didn't show any depth or pop in the text - I saw mild ghosting over the letters rather than 3D titles.

They didn't play any 3D trailers before the film to judge, but the "AMC put your glasses on now" stinger looked just fine in 3D, with deep backgrounds and projections into the audience space. After playing that, they then showed a trailer for a 2D-only film, and then a "feature presentation" stinger came on which also had working 3D, and then the T2 feature started, which didn't show obvious signs of 3D.

Hope this helps!

 

[revgen]

I'd like to add to my previous post that the screen I watched it on was a smaller multiplex screen. Perhaps the 3-D layers would have appeared more impressive had I watched on a larger IMAX screen. I'm looking forward to the 3-D Blu-Ray release to arrive to see if watching at home provides an improved experience.

 

[Panman40]

I think the last few posts have made my mind up, I didn't think a 3D conversion of this classic film was a good idea and I shall now avoid it, I will wait until the UHD extended version becomes avaliable I think.

 

[Johnny Angell]

I think the last few posts have made my mind up, I didn't think a 3D conversion of this classic film was a good idea and I shall now avoid it, I will wait until the UHD extended version becomes avaliable I think.

If there is one.

 

[Camper]

There is no Atmos soundtrack for this and the UHD is not going to have one either.

 

[John Sparks]

Have ordered this from Amazon.uk...hopefully it'll be REGION FREE!!

 

[David Norman]

Hi Mike - will do my best to answer your questions.

My knowledge of 3D and stereo viewing is limited to 3D films. I don't have any firsthand experience shooting that way, thought that does seem like a pretty cool thing to try one day.

The best I could describe it is that the 3D wasn't very apparent throughout. When it was visible, it seemed more noticeable on the sides of the frames than in the center. I noticed a some shots early on, when the terminators are arriving, and you'd think those shots showing the wide open, deep parking lot would have at least some depth - none game through. That was the only time I remember seeing ghosting during the presentation - you could see the streetlamps or parking lot lamps and I expected them to seem deep in the background, but I just saw a double image (with the glasses on) instead.

Hope this helps!

Did you see much effect with your glasses off?

It's possible with two so widely disparate viewing that it could be a theater issue. Bluray.com also is showing some widely varying opinions with the same movie from folks used to 3D, but very seldom 2 people in the same theater reporting.

Of course this becomes unlikely that one person is going to go to 3-4 different theaters to check variance though it would be extremely useful information. Very much my same issue with trying to get opinions for 10 different people reporting 3D effectively viewing on 10 different sets and no cross referencing (DLP projectors vs Active vs Passive vs OLED and various sizes of screen and setup). Weak vs med vs strong 3D or poor conversion vs great presentations -- how do you process such non reproducible technical issues in addition to personal opinions.

 

[WillG]

Hi Mike - will do my best to answer your questions.

My knowledge of 3D and stereo viewing is limited to 3D films. I don't have any firsthand experience shooting that way, thought that does seem like a pretty cool thing to try one day.

The best I could describe it is that the 3D wasn't very apparent throughout. When it was visible, it seemed more noticeable on the sides of the frames than in the center. I noticed a some shots early on, when the terminators are arriving, and you'd think those shots showing the wide open, deep parking lot would have at least some depth - none game through. That was the only time I remember seeing ghosting during the presentation - you could see the streetlamps or parking lot lamps and I expected them to seem deep in the background, but I just saw a double image (with the glasses on) instead.

There were occasionally little hints of depth on the sides of the screen but nothing else. I was surprised, for example, that the hallways in the mental hospital or the shots of the road didn't have any depth in this presentation. Enclosed spaces that normally might have depth in other films (like Titanic) didn't show it here.

The main titles also didn't show any depth or pop in the text - I saw mild ghosting over the letters rather than 3D titles.

They didn't play any 3D trailers before the film to judge, but the "AMC put your glasses on now" stinger looked just fine in 3D, with deep backgrounds and projections into the audience space. After playing that, they then showed a trailer for a 2D-only film, and then a "feature presentation" stinger came on which also had working 3D, and then the T2 feature started, which didn't show obvious signs of 3D.

Hope this helps!

I can't speak much for the technical details, but I find that Josh's post for the most part echoes my observations. I just didn't think the 3D added much in this case. And that there were shots that seemed to have barely any 3D effect at all. Now I did mention that the projection at the theater I saw it in seemed excessively dim, so I don't know how much of an effect that might have had.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

I forgot to mention - my showing was on a pretty large screen (largest non-IMAX auditorium for that location) and maybe it was larger than the RealD spec allows. Brightness seemed fine. The screen had a bit of a curve to it. The top seemed undistorted but you could notice some curving at the bottom. Maybe that contributed.

But again, with all of those same conditions, the 3D stinger that AMC played before the movie started looked totally fine, so I think the auditorium is at least technically capable of showing 3D, even if that wasn't a great presentation.

 

[Panman40]

If there is one.

If there isn't sometime next year I will just pick up the blu Ray for the new transfer.